Religion Clauses question

[JMHACLJ at aol.com]

I have held my peace for a bit.  But Professor Finkelman has fallen for a 
bait and switch tactic.  The net result is that something the state calls 
marriage, defined according to its terms, is changed to suit something that 
homosexual activists call marriage, but which is, in nature and essence, a relationship 
completely different from the one known to the state.

Marriage is a relationship legally sanctioned by the state between persons of 
opposite genders.  The right to enter into such a relationship is not 
conditioned on heterosexuality.  Any gay man may enter into a marriage with any 
willing female.  Any Lesbian female can enter into a marriage with any willing 
male.  No heterosexual male can enter into a marriage with a willing male.  No 
heterosexual female can enter into a marriage with a willing female.

I suppose this will be described by some as sophistry.  Yet to say that 
homosexuals are being denied equal rights when they are prevented from placing 
their unions within the classification of marriage, is to ignore what marriage is, 
and demand a right to have marriage change into what it may become.  Such a 
right would be more correctly described as the right to have things my way.  
But even heterosexuals do not enjoy the absolute right to have things "my way."  

Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20040603/5098f6ca/attachment.htm